On 01/05/2017 10:56 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.12.16 at 06:45, wrote:
Since vlapic_init() is called before vcpu_initialise().
We should call the destroy functions in the the reverse order here.
Double "the". And to quote from my RFC reply:
"Also the ordering issue extends to other calls,
>>> On 31.12.16 at 06:45, wrote:
> Since vlapic_init() is called before vcpu_initialise().
> We should call the destroy functions in the the reverse order here.
Double "the". And to quote from my RFC reply:
"Also the ordering issue extends to other calls, and I think if at all
possible we shoul
> From: Suravee Suthikulpanit [mailto:suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 1:46 PM
>
> Since vlapic_init() is called before vcpu_initialise().
> We should call the destroy functions in the the reverse order here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit
> Reviewed-b
Since vlapic_init() is called before vcpu_initialise().
We should call the destroy functions in the the reverse order here.
Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit
Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky
Cc: Jun Nakajima
Cc: Kevin Tian
---
xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 4 ++--
1 file
